[2025:RJ-JP:5327] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14965/2024 1. Smt. Rajpati @ Rajrani Wife Of Late Shri Veer Singh, Aged About 71 Years, Resident Of Village Ratakalan, Tehsil Ateli Mandi, District Mahendragarh, Haryana. 2. Bhupendra Yadav Son Of Late Shri Veer Singh, Aged About 38 Years, Resident Of Village Ratakalan, Tehsil Ateli Mandi, District Mahendragarh, Haryana. 3. Kumar Sujata Daughter Of Late Veer Singh, Aged About 43 Years, Resident Of Village Ratakalan, Tehsil Ateli Mandi, District Mahendragarh, Haryana. 4. Smt. Soniya Wife Of Shri Chetan Kumar, Daughter Of Late Shri Veer Singh, Aged About 47 Years, Resident Of Rz- 141/a Gali No. 2, First Floor, Front Side, New Delhi. 5. Smt. Supriya Yadav Daughter Of Late Shri Veer Singh, Aged About 41 Years, Resident Of Veer Avas Grah, Bolni Road, Near Rajesh Pilot Chowk, District Rewari, Haryana. ----Petitioners Versus Satish Kumar Yadav Son Of Late Shri Hoshiyar Singh, Aged About 62 Years, Resident 025, Yadav Nagar, Nine Shops, Panipech, Jhotwara Road, Jaipur. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dhhana Ram For Respondent(s) : Mr. Gajanand Yadav HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Order 06/02/2025 This Civil writ petition has been filed by the petitioners- defendants (for short ‘the defendants’) against the order dated 06.10.2023 passed by Additional District Judge No. 3, Jaipur [2025:RJ-JP:5327] (2 of 3) [CW-14965/2024] Metro-II in civil suit No. 7/2021, whereby the trial Court partly disallowed the application filed by the defendants. Learned counsel for the defendants submits that respondent- plaintiff (for short ‘the plaintiff’) filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 28,69,674/- in which trial Court on the basis of the pleading of the parties framed the issues vide order dated 01.02.2023. After that, defendants filed an application under Order 14 Rule 5 read with Section 151 CPC for framing of the additional issues but the trial Court partly disallowed the application filed by the defendants. Learned counsel further submits that Trial Court had not framed the issues as per the pleadings of the parties. So, the order dated 06.10.2023 passed by the trial Court be set aside and the trial Court be directed to frame the issues as per the pleadings of the parties. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has opposed the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the defendants and submits that trial Court has rightly partly disallowed the application filed by the defendants. Issue Nos. 1 to 3 proposed by the defendants were already incorporated in the issue No. 1. So, the present petition be dismissed. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the defendants as well as learned counsel for the plaintiff and perused the impugned order. Trial Court while partly allowing the application filed by the defendants clearly mentioned that proposed issue Nos. 1 to 3 were incorporated in the issue No. 1. So, there was no need to frame the additional issues. So, in my considered opinion, trial Court had not committed any error in partly disallowing the [2025:RJ-JP:5327] (3 of 3) [CW-14965/2024] application filed by the defendants. So, the petition filed by the defendants being bereft of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Tahir/97